Its 1989 and Labour is going through the throes of its quest for ‘Modernisation’. Tony Benn has just lost the leadership election, depressing a generation of Labour activists, and Peter Mandelson has begun to ramp up his project that would eventually become New Labour. In this rather fluid climate of shifting allegiances, policies and politics, a book comes out with an idea for the future of British Socialism…
The Future of Socialism was a book by Bryan Gould in which he pitched his vision of the future of not only the Labour Party but also of British Socialism. With a title that references the famous work of Anthony Crosland which established some of the major concepts of the Post War Consensus, Gould is offering socialism for a post-Thatcher age and surprisingly, for a book written in the late 80’s, it is still relevant today. Dealing with everything from the failure of the post-war consensus established by folks like Anthony Crosland and also the failure of Thatcherism, Gould decides to offer a vision of socialism that confronts these visions of government.
What follows shouldn’t be considered a complete rundown of Gould’s ideas, but more of an introduction to the ideas and concepts that he came up with, which are still useful today.
Gould And His Definition of Socialism
Firstly, let’s start with Gould’s own principles of socialism, which he simplifies to these points:
“These are the basic Socialist values and principles – individual liberty, equality, citizenship, the diffusion of power, the importance of collective and social action… these principles may not have the satisfying certainty of Marxist analysis, nor may they constitute quite the same stirring call to arms as one based on class warfare. But they are a proper expression of the Socialist opposition to injustice, repression and exploitation, and of the socialist concern for the wealth and value of each socialist concern for the welfare and value of each human being, for social justice and for social harmony” (Gould, B. 1989. 72-73).
With these principles, Gould is not only attacking the problems of Crosland’s analysis in which socialism is somehow achieved through the use of a vast managerial technocratic state that ‘manages capitalism’ but doesn’t subvert or change it. He was also attacking the centralised and authoritarian nature of Thatcher’s consensus of there being ‘no society’. It also can be used to attack the problems of the New Labour Years, Kinnock’s Labour and even the ideas of Benn.
From here we can look at the various concepts and ideas that Gould pitches to achieve the principles of “individual liberty, equality, citizenship, the diffusion of power, the importance of collective and social action.”
Individual Choice and Socialism
The idea of the individual in a socialist state is something that doesn’t come up much, with socialism often being more interested in the concept of the collective than the individual. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the individual doesn’t matter in a socialist society, something which Gould (and many others like Jamie Gilbert) has tried to analyse and rectify. For Gould, the choices of the individual as a worker, consumer and member of society matter as much as the collective:
“We have, for example, paid too little attention to the possibility that within security provided by collective provision, a much greater range of choice could and should be provided.” (Gould, B. 1989. 65)
This also means a consistent appeal for equality and to support the rights of all individuals:
“The commitment to individual freedom and equality flows from the Socialist concern for the diffusion of power, but also from the socialist appreciation of the importance of society and the individuals response with it.” (Gould, B. 1989. 67).
The idea of that in the grand scheme of things the collective is the only thing that matters, whilst partially true, misses out the point that the rights of the individual matter as well, and it should be ensured that socialism can both appeal to the collective and the individual.
What Government Can Do…
To Gould, the concept that the Government should do nothing or at best simply manage capitalism is a foolish one. A socialist government should be one that uses its resources and wealth to help in the diffusion of power. This can be done through nationalising industries and then instead of putting them into the hands of a bunch of technocratic managers hand over elements to the workers, councils and cities that rely on public services and reduce the possibilities of natural monopolies forming. Government should also ensure that it isn’t a centralised beast that concentrates power in Westminster.
“The long years of Thatcher long years have at least taught us that we cannot always rely on exercising power from the centre and that strategies are needed to protect and develop more localised interests, whenever this may be possible.” (Gould, B. 1989. 55).
A socialist government should work with industries too, to ensure that the Britain can adapt and change to the changing world of work. For example, Gould believed that the government should have renationalised BT, alongside working with telecommunication companies to establish fibre optic networks across the U.K. to catch up with the then incoming rise of the internet (all of which was proposed in 1988).
The idea that the government should have an arm’s length relationship with industries (but have a close relationship with finance) is one that reduces the ability to implement full employment. It forces any British government to kowtow to the whims of finance when the time comes, instead of pursuing ways out of that dodgy relationship.
Market Socialism: A Future?
The idea of using systems of the market to ensure a socialist economy is horrifying to many, but elements of a market economy can be used to ensure that there is not only more choice, but also that prices and encourage innovation.
“The Decentralisation of economic power which is the market encourages should be recognised by socialists as one of the markets most desirable features. It is not, of course, something to be taken for granted, and it can easily-in markets that are not properly monitored or regulated-become more an illusion than a reality” (Gould, B. 1989. 96)
As mentioned above though, this is not to say that the market by itself is the most efficient or the best system possible, or that a socialist government should allow a market to just be a lassiez-faire operation with no oversight. This is a foolish thing to think, and the major mistake of the Blair/Brown Government. Unregulated markets can cause damage:
“The claim that the market is an instrument and guarantor of individual freedom is therefore fallacious. For many people, the market offers the illusion of free choice but the reality of exploitation and oppression.” (Gould, B. 1989. 103).
Therefore, for market socialism to work you also need additional elements, such as worker ownership.
Employee Ownership
Employee ownership is one of the main pillars of Gould’s vision of a new socialist economy, the idea that instead of having various companies be owned by either disinterested shareholders or managerial types that companies, corporations, essentially any business, should be owned by workers, for workers:
“The Socialist will support employee ownership on the ground that men and women should have control over their own lives, including working lives, and should enjoy the fruits of their Labour.” (Gould, B. 1989. 138).
For Gould this doesn’t mean embracing the fallacy some cooperative and trade union individuals believe in, namely that a successful socialist system can rely on just one and not the other. Instead, Gould believes in a combination of the two – co-ops & ESOPS (Employee Share Ownership Plan) can provide democratic control for workers, whilst trade unions can provide the support and managerial experience for elements that can’t be done by workers. These ideas are important for the principles of industrial democracy, the idea of workers being able to participate and criticise the work that can affect their jobs and lives.
Conclusions
The idea of adapting to the constantly changing world is what influences the theories of Gould, that instead of replacing socialism with something else, it’s based upon the idea of altering it for the new world instead of abandoning it to capitalism. It also influenced the move away from the technocratic managerial aspects of Labour, with it’s concepts of achieving social democracy through the management of capitalism, which has ruled the party since the 1950’s, concepts that would eventually influence the likes of Tony Blair and New Labour with the ‘Third Way’, which had disastrous results. Essentially, Gould advocates making the market socialist instead of simply managing its outcomes. It would be wrong to view Gouldnomics as a fad of late 80’s – indeed, even today its ideas offer a radical potential for the future of the British Left
Bibliography:
Gould, B. (1989). The Future of Socialism. Johnthan Cape; London
Image credit: Laurence Steele https://instagram.com/laurenceasteele?igshid=2peezwx4f0d8
Blog 1201 